I cannot think of too many circumstances where a company would allow and sanction another companies icons and marketing materials mix with their own in a customer facing kiosk.

I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.

It's not in the Samsung kiosk. It's on a different wall some distance behind the display back wall. Look at the picture more closely. And it's not a Samsung store. It's reported as a Euronics store, who has apparently set aside an area to promote Samsung products much like some US stores have done for Sony or Apple or Bose.

Would Apple allow Best Buy to set up an Apple kiosk right in front of a giant wall that says Microsoft Windows Forever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

It's not in the Samsung kiosk. It's on a different wall some distance behind the display back wall. Look at the picture more closely. And it's not a Samsung store. It's apparently a Euronics store who has set aside an area to promote Samsung products, much like some US stores have done for Sony or Apple or Bose.

You are probably the only one who remained on a particular point that you were making. I'm not sure that you can claim ownership of my point, which I believe was orthogonal, rather than contradictory to yours. So 100% is unlikely, but I admire your ambition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmhisey

I'm glad that you agree with nearly all my comments but won't be satisfied until we get to 100%

In fact, despite all the dissembling and pedantry re: parsing the defintions and connotations of racism, the relevance of UN's definition of racial discrimination vis-Ã*-vis racism, and so on, I think I'm the only one who's remained on point.

Or the third possibility that Apple management already had their minds made up that they weren't negotiating with Samsung on anything. Period.

In any case this isn't a big deal. They agree on a fair licensing fee, Apple pays up, and they go on their merry way.

Apple already had a FRAND licensing exercise with Nokia. Rather than take a chance in court, Apple paid up, threw in a few Apple patent licenses to Nokia, and every one went away happy. The same will happen here (sans rights to any Apple patents)

Where did you get this (mis?)information? The terms of the deal where secret as usuall but experts predicted that they just paid the frand licensing terms like anyone else in the industry. Its was believed that nokia tried to force larger royalties than from other companies because they wanted to crosslicense the touch patents. There is nothing I have read about that suggest that Apple cross-lisensed its patents. And the clearest evidence are Nokias phones...

zomg, first post, better flame me! seriously, gator has had it right the whole time... one needs to ask questions before they can properly determine what has actually happened, but why would anyone want to ask questions, let alone think of the questions they would have to ask, when they have a web-site, and other uninformed people telling them and agreeing with what they want to hear... wait, never mind... the loudest person is always right...

zomg, first post, better flame me! seriously, gator has had it right the whole time... one needs to ask questions before they can properly determine what has actually happened, but why would anyone want to ask questions, let alone think of the questions they would have to ask, when they have a web-site, and other uninformed people telling them and agreeing with what they want to hear... wait, never mind... the loudest person is always right...

confirmation bias is a strong and nearly unavoidable occurrence. One has to actively fight against it.

Where did you get this (mis?)information? The terms of the deal where secret as usuall but experts predicted that they just paid the frand licensing terms like anyone else in the industry. Its was believed that nokia tried to force larger royalties than from other companies because they wanted to crosslicense the touch patents. There is nothing I have read about that suggest that Apple cross-lisensed its patents. And the clearest evidence are Nokias phones...

"Apple said in a statement today that Nokia will have a license to some technology, “but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique.” Apple gets a license to some of Nokia’s patents, including ones that were deemed essential to industry standards on mobile phones."

That statement from Apple would infer that some of the the granted licenses were even for "innovations that make the iPhone unique". There was more to the case than a simple issue of F/RAND licensing. But we'll probably never know the details, specifically why Apple would agree to license a group of patents to Nokia in the settlement.

Yes and as many fandroids have said for years many galaxy s phones and touchwhiz are obvious copies of iOS and apple.

Doesn't mean Samsung is always guilty.

Just because someone stole a wallet doesn't mean they robbed a bank.

Doesn't matter, doesn't it. If you pull the tiger's tail, you shouldn't be surprised if you get bitten. Samsung knows what it is doing. It is very deliberate and intentional. They know Apple through both in competitor and supplier relationships, and should have known that a lawsuit was a possible outcome.

It is just business, though. Competition and negotiation through multiple means. Samsung is placing a bet that the loss of Apple's component business can be offset by increased sales in their mobile business (through copying the perceived market leader). The fact that they are in court is just all part of the game.